I mean, why bother developing their own email client software, when there is loads of email clients about that are much better anyway (i.e. Thunderbird).
Maybe this is a part of them moving away from the client altogether, and a move towards just being a normal ISP.
And that would kind of make sense wouldn't it? I mean, why bother with all the whizz bang of you're own client software, and perpetuate a business model that isn't making you money, when you could just use a portal and normal software for a fraction of the price, and follow a business model that other companies are making money with.
If I were a programmer at AOL at the moment, I'd be checking JobServe regularly...
If you got one of those lego tape loaders, and modified it to load punch cards into a reader, you could make it bahave a bit like a file system (should be quite easy to do on linux). Mount that file system and set it as apache's document root, and hey presto
The Worlds First Punch Card Powered Webserver!!!
You could probably do it with IIS too, but I don't know if it could keep up with the pace;>
I think a very valid point came across in that debate.
If arguments in language are considered to be expression as art, isn't programming anything akin to prose?
Programming languages are languages in their own right. If I describe something in a novel that's a new idea, it doesn't mean that I'm going to develop it, and therefore I shouldn't be able to patent it. If two authors come up with a similar idea for a book, one can't just sue the other. In code it should be the same. Two sites may allow a similar experience for their visitors, but they should really only be allowed to copyright the code to implement that. Not patent the experience. I mean, what would have happen if Eddison had patented the experience of light shining on walls?
I think there are two real problems here:
The only people who really understand what is going on are the techies and geeks, but everone else thinks they know better.
The companies creating all the patents are really big and can therefore afford the legal assitance needed to squash everyone else.
And can just say about that stuff Dickinson said about going out and getting yourself a lawyer to sort out the legal problems: what a twat. Where the fuck does he think an average programmer is going to get that sort of cash from? I think the fact that he is a lawyer helped him conceive this truely inspired comment from the back of his arse. -- Jimadilo
I don't mean to burst this bubble, but this does not seem to be any better research then any of their other stuff.
We are all going to have a lot of fun with this report, but seeming as Gartner Group usally try to debunk OSS, has anybody seriously consided what might have caused this change in tack??
Like perhaps it isn't just that they suddenly relised (16 years late apparently) what a good idea it is, and that perhaps this hints at slightly more cunning manoeuvring??
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, why bother developing their own email client software, when there is loads of email clients about that are much better anyway (i.e. Thunderbird).
Maybe this is a part of them moving away from the client altogether, and a move towards just being a normal ISP.
And that would kind of make sense wouldn't it? I mean, why bother with all the whizz bang of you're own client software, and perpetuate a business model that isn't making you money, when you could just use a portal and normal software for a fraction of the price, and follow a business model that other companies are making money with.
If I were a programmer at AOL at the moment, I'd be checking JobServe regularly...
If you got one of those lego tape loaders, and modified it to load punch cards into a reader, you could make it bahave a bit like a file system (should be quite easy to do on linux). Mount that file system and set it as apache's document root, and hey presto
;>
The Worlds First Punch Card Powered Webserver!!!
You could probably do it with IIS too, but I don't know if it could keep up with the pace
I can really say that I am an expert on these things, so is the a privacy issue here??
--
Jimadilo
Someone here must have some time to devote.
If we all put in some money we can get lawyers.
Why don't we sort this thing out??
This patent is obvious bullshit, and we know we can find lots of prior art, so why be scared?
--
Jimadilo
If arguments in language are considered to be expression as art, isn't programming anything akin to prose?
Programming languages are languages in their own right. If I describe something in a novel that's a new idea, it doesn't mean that I'm going to develop it, and therefore I shouldn't be able to patent it. If two authors come up with a similar idea for a book, one can't just sue the other.
In code it should be the same. Two sites may allow a similar experience for their visitors, but they should really only be allowed to copyright the code to implement that. Not patent the experience. I mean, what would have happen if Eddison had patented the experience of light shining on walls?
I think there are two real problems here:
And can just say about that stuff Dickinson said about going out and getting yourself a lawyer to sort out the legal problems: what a twat. Where the fuck does he think an average programmer is going to get that sort of cash from? I think the fact that he is a lawyer helped him conceive this truely inspired comment from the back of his arse.
--
Jimadilo
OK,
I don't mean to burst this bubble, but this does not seem to be any better research then any of their other stuff.
We are all going to have a lot of fun with this report, but seeming as Gartner Group usally try to debunk OSS, has anybody seriously consided what might have caused this change in tack??
Like perhaps it isn't just that they suddenly relised (16 years late apparently) what a good idea it is, and that perhaps this hints at slightly more cunning manoeuvring??